Keith's spelling system is not a "mockery". As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time, and Keith's system is his offering of an attempt to refine KK. The argument, it seems to me, is about precisely what some of the sounds actually were and if and when they changed. I don't think that Keith's spelling will catch on in the modern language, any more than KS. But neither is a mockery. I would prefer to take both as honest attempts to express some individuals' perspectives on the language, and to take what I can from what these individuals offer. If some people prefer to see them as something to fight over, so be it - that, too, is part of life's rich tapestry I suppose!

Karesk wrote:As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time,

I would not agree. The fact that the proposed reconstruction is controversial is why hundreds of pages have been published showing how the evidence of the texts does not fit the theory. The phonological theory underlying KK has not accepted by academic researchers to have existed in Cornish, and indeed the recommended pronunciation of KK has not been taken up by speakers of the revived language (including the devisor of KK).

That is why more recent work has been in analysing the actual phonology of modern dialects (and that means the one attempted, even if there is L1 interference from English). In Skeul an Tavas this is the phonology which is described. It's the phonology that makes it possible for speakers of the revived language to understand one another—because it's the phonology they actually use.

KS does a better job at accurately representing that phonology than the SWF does.

Karesk wrote:As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time,

I would not agree. The fact that the proposed reconstruction is controversial is why hundreds of pages have been published showing how the evidence of the texts does not fit the theory. The phonological theory underlying KK has not accepted by academic researchers to have existed in Cornish, and indeed the recommended pronunciation of KK has not been taken up by speakers of the revived language (including the devisor of KK).

This is not entirely true. There are academics who accept Ken George's phonology in part at least. Peter Schrijver, for example, accepts the theory of the two o-sounds (KK ‹o› : ‹oe›). Other academics have differing views on issues such as assibilation, pre-occlusion, vocalic alternation differing from the publications you are referring to. It is absolutely legitimate to have differing opinions on such matters. They become flaws only when dogmatically implemented in an orthography and I mean several co-called orthographic camps.

Evertype wrote:That is why more recent work has been in analysing the actual phonology of modern dialects (and that means the one attempted, even if there is L1 interference from English). In Skeul an Tavas this is the phonology which is described. It's the phonology that makes it possible for speakers of the revived language to understand one another—because it's the phonology they actually use.

KS does a better job at accurately representing that phonology than the SWF does.

I'm sure Ken George would claim the same thing about KK, Gendall about Modern Cornish, Tim Saunders about his one man orthography etc., etc., etc...

The best evidence for /o/ vs /O/ (or as I prefer /U/ vs /O/) is the use of 'u' (and rarely 'oy') for the former in final *unstressed* syllables. The grapheme 'u' is available here because MC spells phonetically as far as its resources permit, so that /y, i, I/ neutralised in this position are all written 'y' so freeing up 'u' to represent /o/. This is further backed up by the choice of rhymes. If the 'two o's' remained distinct in this weak position it is most unlikely that they merged in stressed syllables. In stressed monosyllables digraphs such as 'oy' and 'ou' etc. are used for /o/ in some mss where the vowel is long. When short and stressed 'u' is often used for /o/. There is some confusion here but the distinction is statistically significant way beyond chance levels. It is a general property of the MC mss that they will not use digraphs for the stressed half-long vowels in polysyllables. As a result they have no 'machinery' to distinguish /o/ vs /O/ nor /I/ vs /E/. This is no surprise since this is a well known feature of Middle English spelling (but not pronunciation). LC texts probably need to be analysed on an individual basis, since each author spells differently, but do show some evidence for the '2 o's' remaining distinct.

Karesk wrote:Keith's spelling system is not a "mockery". As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time, and Keith's system is his offering of an attempt to refine KK. The argument, it seems to me, is about precisely what some of the sounds actually were and if and when they changed. I don't think that Keith's spelling will catch on in the modern language, any more than KS. But neither is a mockery. I would prefer to take both as honest attempts to express some individuals' perspectives on the language, and to take what I can from what these individuals offer. If some people prefer to see them as something to fight over, so be it - that, too, is part of life's rich tapestry I suppose!